On Jan. 11 Council agenda there is report recommending an amendment to fence bylaw in order to ensure there is clarity on the need for enclosing a pool and to identify that it is an offence to operate a pool without conforming to the bylaw. I know that some people have found the current regime as being ambiguous; hence I am very comfortable with the amendment.
I notice that my previous comment was obviously censored and deleted! I will try this once more.
The amendment does not offer clarity. Paragraph 4-19 states …” unless such pool was constructed in accordance with the fence and enclosure requirements of By-law 2005-112, …”
By-law 2005-112 was repealed in 2012 by By-law 2012-132.
So which applies?
Hello Ulrich, I did not censor your comment; it is sitting in my proverbial “to do” pile…need to take time to read the bylaw so I can answer you correctly. I will do so. And please feel free to send a comment to Staff as feedback on the report. Send to clerks@king.ca. AS for your hypothesis of cemsorship I only do so when the comment strays far from polite.
Thank you for the clarification. My apology for not realizing that I sent my comment just before the weekend.
The amendment does not shed any light on whether pools in backyards of properties of 2 acres or more are still exempt from fencing requirements.
Hello Ulrich. In an earlier comment you referenced the fact that the amendment refers to bylaw 2005-112 which was repealed in 2012. In my anwer which follows I am incorporating this point. My answer: if someone builds a pool without enclosure in 2006, for example, the rules which should have been followed were the rules defined by bylaw 2005-112. If the latter did not include need for enclosure there is no need for enclosure in 2021/today even though that bylaw (2005-112) has been repealed. I hope I have answered your question but as I find it easy to get lost when reading the bylaw I will not be surprised if there is still uncertainty. If so, please contact Nancy Cronsberry, ncronsberry@king.ca and she will contact you.
Thank you for your interpretation. Our pool was actually constructed in 1986, so an even earlier by-law may have applied.
I want to mention that I appreciate all the work you do for the Township, even if I don’t agree with you on some issues.
Hello Uli, Glad my response was helpful. And I am aware that you and I do not see eye to eye always; I value that we can each express our opinion. Thank you for the acknowledgment.